Spud's UE Diary

[MrsD]

Re: Spud's UE Diary

when you get a bit further in you'll amass a collection of these "we definitely sent you an enforceable CCA", "we have complied to the letter of the law", we've checked out your house, we know you live in a castle and we're coming for it, down to we're coming for your doorstep and sending around Godzilla to collect it, thing is they lie, big time, all the time and I don't even think they know it because they know squat about the law, so chill Spud, if Nids says it UE it is until anyone else proves otherwise. All of these lowlives work on a "terrify the peasants" business model, if you need to be truly terrified, we'll let you know and help you out. and I'm not saying it's wrong to get it all square in your head, we've all gone through that, just don't let it interfere with living your life.

[Still Waving]

Re: Spud's UE Diary

Hi Spud

I'm following this thread with interest. I find this particular issue something of a grey area too, but I think the thing is that so do the creditors/DCAs, whatever they may say.

But I am a man of detail and process.....And yes, Sometimes a pain in the arse ( Its a curse, I was born this way and I cannot help it )

I am imagining mummy saying "come on young Spud, eat your din-dins, it's good for you." and 2-year old Spud replying "Yes but what's in it and why is it good for me?"

[Spud]

Re: Spud's UE Diary

Thanks for the replies, I'll read up on Pauls Blog.

I am certainly not stressing about this, Let me reassure you about that

I do understand the UE process and what they have provided is way off the mark so im reasonably confident about this one.

But I am a man of detail and process.....And yes, Sometimes a pain in the arse ( Its a curse, I was born this way and I cannot help it )

I just cannot rest until I have the process square in my mind. It may come accross that I am stressing ect but nothing could be further from the truth.

I am trying to learn to just sit back a bit but its like trying to change the habits of a lifetime!

I just couldnt find a definative answer regarding the fine line between default and compliance in regard to CCA requests and what actually constitutes compliance hence the question

I do appreciate all your help more than you could ever know

[PlanB]

Re: Spud's UE Diary

So they have supplied something but not something that is enforcable

. . . . Would that still be classed as being in default or would they have deemed to have complied with the Sec 77-79 request?

Does that make sense? I've read it 3 times !!!

Paul makes sense of this in his latest blog which should help

http://paulatwatsonssolicitors.wordpress.com/

Basically a creditor can send you rubbish in response to a s.77-79 request and tell you that they believe they have satisfied your CCA request. Only a court can tell them if they are wrong.

If the court decides that they have satisfied your CCA request (sent appropriate documents however illegible or lacking in information) that doesn't stop the court dismissing the claim if the CCA was improperly executed.

In my case Santander vs Mayhew I lost the legal argument on s.78 compliance but won the legal argument on s.61 not properly executed. There are loads of reasons why a credit agreement can be UE.

I hope this makes sense

[SXGuy]

Re: Spud's UE Diary

Why are you stressing over this? if they havent supplied any prescribed terms and the T's and C's they did supply are illegible then just chill!

Listen, DCA's and Banks will often tell you they have complied and satisfied their obligations, they lie.

If you are worried, you have plenty to defend yourself in my opinion.

[Spud]

Re: Spud's UE Diary

Sorry to ask a Basic question but my brain is a bit frazzled at the moment and I cannot seem to think straight ( Got terminal man flu)

In relation to a credit card taken out around 2003

If a CCA'd a creditor and they provided a copy of an application form that was missing the pescribed terms - (Literally a copy of a 30 second sign here app form) which Niddy has not suprisingly classed as UE

And a copy of Credit card terms that were virtually illedgeable and quite possibly didnt relate to the card in question

So they have supplied something but not something that is enforcable

Would that still be classed as being in default or would they have deemed to have complied with the Sec 77-79 request? I have a feeling that as they have sent something, Then they have complied and this is not officially in default ( Preventing enforcement action) but I keep second guessing myself

I know that not replying puts the account in default but I guess my question is Does sending something back even though it is clearly UE then remove them from being in default?

I know that Sec 127 then kicks in as what they have sent is missing the pescribed terms but I am trying to establish whether they are still oficially in default....ie - Prevented from taking enforcement action

Does that make sense? I've read it 3 times !!!

[Spud]

Re: Spud's UE Diary

Niddy

OK will do

What are your thoughts regarding reminding them that they should be holding action whilst this is being investigated?

Is there any foundation in that?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Spud's UE Diary

Hold fire on sending Paul's letter - ie edit it and incorporate the letter received today into it as well mate so its bang up to date. Just say "in relation to your previous two letters dated X & Y"....

Cover all bases

[Spud]

Re: Spud's UE Diary

Interesting, but could it be a letterhead for rent jobby...?

Anyway, hopefully when they see sight of Paul's little template they'll think again

These could well be letters for rent. same as HL legal ect Thanks Niddy - I understand a little more about them not needed to be titled ect

I have just received my post for today

Got a response from Brachers regarding my "Sold in dispute/UE/Telephone threats letter. They certainly dont hang around!

I basically set out that this is UE as AMEX have not complied with my CCA request as per the Sold in dispute template and complained that they were threatening telephone contact when I have a letter from AMEX who paid me compensation for telephone harassment and stated that external contacts will only make contact by letter ect Asked them to justify why they were going against their clients wishes ect

Apparently they are "sorry" that I feel the need to complain ( Wasnt really a formal complaint but they are treating it as such) and in line with their clients protocol they have passed the complaint to AMEX internal investigations.

Now I suppose technically until AMEX respond - The account should not really be "progressed" but I notice Brachers did not confirm that they would be holding action ect

I will still be sending "Pauls" template letter regardless - Off to the post office shortly

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Spud's UE Diary

This is just the same - Its their internal template letter code

The code for this one is clearly a LBA even though it is not "headed" or "Titled" as such

But given that and the pay by XXXX Time and date suggests it means business and must be treated as such

Appreciate it

It doesn't need to be headed - it only needs to explain the actual reasons for them wanting to pursue a claim. Examples of non compliance are;

4.4

The court may decide that there has been a failure of compliance by a party because, for example, that party has –

(1) not provided sufficient information to enable the other party to understand the issues;
(2) not acted within a time limit set out in a relevant pre-action protocol, or, where no specific time limit applies, within a reasonable period;
(3) unreasonably refused to consider ADR (paragraph 8 in Part III of this Practice Direction and the pre-action protocols all contain similar provisions about ADR); or
(4) without good reason, not disclosed documents requested to be disclosed.

It's the bold points that they need to have really followed here.

--> PRACTICE DIRECTION – PRE-ACTION CONDUCT - Civil Procedure Rules

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Spud's UE Diary

I think these clowns are based in Maidstone and they seem pretty clued up on Pre-Action Protocol. They charge a modest £15 to send out a LBA and will check for home ownership at the same time according to their website:

http://www.brachers.co.uk/services/d...ion-protocols/

Interesting, but could it be a letterhead for rent jobby...?

Anyway, hopefully when they see sight of Paul's little template they'll think again

[Spud]

Re: Spud's UE Diary

Ive had letters before with codes like LBA at the bottom, its a reference for them so they know which letters they have sent out.

Ive had some which are like 001, 002, 003 like they send them out in a particular order.

This is just the same - Its their internal template letter code

The code for this one is clearly a LBA even though it is not "headed" or "Titled" as such

But given that and the pay by XXXX Time and date suggests it means business and must be treated as such

Appreciate it

[SXGuy]

Re: Spud's UE Diary

Ive had letters before with codes like LBA at the bottom, its a reference for them so they know which letters they have sent out.

Ive had some which are like 001, 002, 003 like they send them out in a particular order.

[Spud]

Re: Spud's UE Diary

I think these clowns are based in Maidstone and they seem pretty clued up on Pre-Action Protocol. They charge a modest £15 to send out a LBA and will check for home ownership at the same time according to their website:

http://www.brachers.co.uk/services/d...ion-protocols/

I would agree with all of that.

They seem "real deal" hence my previous posts

Thankyou to all - Just getting the points down in the letter properly before hitting the print button

[PlanB]

Re: Spud's UE Diary

Brachers? Who?

Sorry, who are these clowns? Never heard of them issuing N1's before.

I think these clowns are based in Maidstone and they seem pretty clued up on Pre-Action Protocol. They charge a modest £15 to send out a LBA and will check for home ownership at the same time according to their website:

http://www.brachers.co.uk/services/d...ion-protocols/